I agree that this is a valid point that neocons need to address. If they believe in the 1% doctrine, why would it not apply to Global Warming? If they don't, then doesn't that have a drastic impact upon the rationale (or lack thereof) for the war in Iraq?

Personally, I believe the 1% doctrine is a bunch of shit that could be used to justify almost anything and therefore is far more dangerous than useful.

Be that as it may, it's still a pretty good club to beat them over the head with regarding global warming. The true irony is that they are taking the opposite stance on this 1%, since we are 99% certain that global warming will endanger our way of life (at the least).

When I use the one percent doctrine to question their stance on global warming, I tend to sidestep the fact that the one percent doctrine also means we need to protect the planet from the one percent chance that giant fire breathing dragons are going to fly out of my ass and attack the moon, or all the other nonsense we cannot prove will never ever happen.

I guess we only need to protect the world from 1% threats with oil under them.

CeeKay: Yes, thank you. Right, Unbreakable is like a stream of bat's piss.Unbreakable: What?CeeKay: I, um, I, ah, I merely meant, Your Majesty, that, ah, you shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark.

Logged

Because I can,also because I don't care what you want.XBL: OriginalCeeKayWii U: CeeKay

The work, known as The Vulcan Project, has already yielded a significant discovery: Previous CO2 estimates that used population as a proxy for emissions overestimated the Northeast's greenhouse-gas generation, while underestimating the coal-heavy Southeast's contribution.

The work, known as The Vulcan Project, has already yielded a significant discovery: Previous CO2 estimates that used population as a proxy for emissions overestimated the Northeast's greenhouse-gas generation, while underestimating the coal-heavy Southeast's contribution.

The south is coal heavy for simple reasons:

1. The moisture in the air makes solar power suppliment undoable.2. There isn't enough hydroelectric power available here due to terrain South of Tennessee and parts of extreme northern South Carolina3. There is not enough wind in the south to power wind farms

Nuclear is good, but it takes years to get approval for a place to build a plant, then it takes years worth of bueracratic navigation to get permits, etc, etc to build a plant. There are a number of nuclear plant projects currently underway, but they were started years ago and will take years yet to finish.

It just occurred to me that if my company blocked Octopus Overlords like they do this site (for some reason).... I'd almost never have been active in the Religion and Politics forum over there. It's TOUGH to be active when you only have mere minutes to respond at all due to only being able to do so at home at night when the wife isn't asking you to do stuff.

I guess it's been about 2 years or so since my company started blocking game related sites. For some reason the OO forums have managed to slip through the filter during this time, but gamingtrend was an immediate casualty. And they apparently started filtering not because they didn't want people reading about games at work, but because they decided that game sites are tied to spyware more frequently than other sites.

Nuclear is good, but it takes years to get approval for a place to build a plant, then it takes years worth of bueracratic navigation to get permits, etc, etc to build a plant. There are a number of nuclear plant projects currently underway, but they were started years ago and will take years yet to finish.

False.

The first nuclear power plant application to be received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in over 30 years was received just last year. Therefore, there are no real projects that were started "years ago" because there hasn't been a new project started in well over 30 years. The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projected in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. I think the last nuclear plant to go online was back in '96 - the Watts Bar plant in TN.

Nuclear is good, but it takes years to get approval for a place to build a plant, then it takes years worth of bueracratic navigation to get permits, etc, etc to build a plant. There are a number of nuclear plant projects currently underway, but they were started years ago and will take years yet to finish.

False.

The first nuclear power plant application to be received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in over 30 years was received just last year. Therefore, there are no real projects that were started "years ago" because there hasn't been a new project started in well over 30 years. The Energy Information Administration in its Annual Energy Outlook 2003 projected in its reference case that no nuclear units will become operable between 2001 and 2025. I think the last nuclear plant to go online was back in '96 - the Watts Bar plant in TN.

True. I ought to know a little about this topc as I work for a ultility. The process to build a nuclear plant starts years before the application is filed with the NRC. They have to go through numerous hoops prior to ever putting in that application. The first and biggest hurdle is to find an approved site -- which many communities deny. This can take years and has many minor approval hurdles and such invoving enironmental legislation and such. The second huge hurdle is to attempt to get it funded in rates -- which are controlled by PSC's since power company profits are strictly controlled by the government and you have to get permission to change rates in order to keep your relgulated rates the same. Unlike oil companies -- our profits never soar into ridiculous areas and stay static constantly unless the PSC's allow raising of rates for specific reasons.

I'm saying all of that to let you know that at least at the company where I work they've been working to try to get 4 or 5 nuclear plants on the board for nearly a decade, but it will probably still be 5 to 10 years before they are realized. It takes a LOT of time.

I'm saying all of that to let you know that at least at the company where I work they've been working to try to get 4 or 5 nuclear plants on the board for nearly a decade, but it will probably still be 5 to 10 years before they are realized. It takes a LOT of time.

We may be using a different definition of "underway". I think underway - at the very least - means plans drawn, site finalized and application filed. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a potential project still in the ROI and feasibility analysis process. I don't see those projects as being underway, but as potential business opportunities. If every utility project that was in this phase was realized, we'd have enough power surplus to power 1/2 the world.

And yes, I know all about regulatory rates. I used to have to write and file rate tariffs. It sucks.

So the only conclusion is that you are talking about planning projects, which means that no application has been filed and still in the pre-construction, pre-approval, pre-approval filing stage. Those costs are fairly minor in the scheme of things and projects in this phase are easily disposable. When you start doing the sitework for the project or you've filed the application, I'd call it underway...that's when the hard costs start hitting the income statement and balance sheet.

The second huge hurdle is to attempt to get it funded in rates -- which are controlled by PSC's since power company profits are strictly controlled by the government and you have to get permission to change rates in order to keep your relgulated rates the same. Unlike oil companies -- our profits never soar into ridiculous areas and stay static constantly unless the PSC's allow raising of rates for specific reasons.

Hah, unless you live in one of the states that thought deregulation was a good idea.

The second huge hurdle is to attempt to get it funded in rates -- which are controlled by PSC's since power company profits are strictly controlled by the government and you have to get permission to change rates in order to keep your relgulated rates the same. Unlike oil companies -- our profits never soar into ridiculous areas and stay static constantly unless the PSC's allow raising of rates for specific reasons.

Hah, unless you live in one of the states that thought deregulation was a good idea.

The second huge hurdle is to attempt to get it funded in rates -- which are controlled by PSC's since power company profits are strictly controlled by the government and you have to get permission to change rates in order to keep your relgulated rates the same. Unlike oil companies -- our profits never soar into ridiculous areas and stay static constantly unless the PSC's allow raising of rates for specific reasons.

Hah, unless you live in one of the states that thought deregulation was a good idea.

That can't be. Deregulation leads to competition which leads to lower prices and capitalistic nirvana. I experienced this joy firsthand in CA in the early 2000s.

Edit: Instead of just making a funny, I should point out that I generally favor deregulation, but when you pair deregulation with an utter lack of oversight and allow corporations to fleece captive customers, the upsides of deregulation tend to go out the window, so I feel regulation is sometimes (very) necessary.

I don't know if there's a place in this thread for people who don't just want to yell their opinions more and more loudly, but...

Quote from: The Meal on April 07, 2008, 04:11:21 AM

China has some incentive to help reduce global warming:

Quote

China's rapid industrialization and increasing population, along with a growing dietary preference among its citizens for meat, are straining the country's water resources to the point where food imports will probably be needed to meet demand in coming decades.

Quote

The recent trend toward increased meat consumption in China is aggravating the country's relative shortage of water, says Sandra Postel, director of the Global Water Policy Project in Amherst, Mass. While the nation is home to about 21 percent of the planet's population, it has only 8 percent of its renewable water resources, she notes. More than one-third of the world's population lives in regions where water is considered scarce (SN: 7/20/02, p. 42).

The second huge hurdle is to attempt to get it funded in rates -- which are controlled by PSC's since power company profits are strictly controlled by the government and you have to get permission to change rates in order to keep your relgulated rates the same. Unlike oil companies -- our profits never soar into ridiculous areas and stay static constantly unless the PSC's allow raising of rates for specific reasons.

Hah, unless you live in one of the states that thought deregulation was a good idea.

I'm saying all of that to let you know that at least at the company where I work they've been working to try to get 4 or 5 nuclear plants on the board for nearly a decade, but it will probably still be 5 to 10 years before they are realized. It takes a LOT of time.

We may be using a different definition of "underway". I think underway - at the very least - means plans drawn, site finalized and application filed. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a potential project still in the ROI and feasibility analysis process. I don't see those projects as being underway, but as potential business opportunities. If every utility project that was in this phase was realized, we'd have enough power surplus to power 1/2 the world.

And yes, I know all about regulatory rates. I used to have to write and file rate tariffs. It sucks.

So the only conclusion is that you are talking about planning projects, which means that no application has been filed and still in the pre-construction, pre-approval, pre-approval filing stage. Those costs are fairly minor in the scheme of things and projects in this phase are easily disposable. When you start doing the sitework for the project or you've filed the application, I'd call it underway...that's when the hard costs start hitting the income statement and balance sheet.

Plans being drawn up also depend heavily on the location, as each have different cooling methods, etc. But yes the costs are not that great in those stages -- the problem is that it just takes a lot of time. Costs not so much -- time.... potentially considerable to design, plan, locate, get approvals, etc.

And btw-- the following link from nerc seems to indicate that there are a fairly good number in the works: linkBelieve me, when they get to the application stage, they are fairly far along.

The Antarctic Ice Shelf's latest little tantrum attack on those glorious fighters against the "global warming" propaganda dumped 160 square miles of ice into the ocean.

Quote

Scientists are citing "rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica" as the cause of an initial collapse of the Wilkins Ice Shelf. The damage got started at the end of February when an iceberg dropped off and triggered the "runaway disintegration" of a 160-square-mile portion of the 5,282-square-mile shelf.

The ice shelf, which scientists speculate has floated in the Antarctic region for hundreds of years, is succumbing to recent rises in temperature in the area--an average of 0.9 degree Fahrenheit every 10 years for the last 50 years.

This series of pictures that show the beginning of the breakup were taken by NASA's Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer sensor, which flies on its Earth Observing System Aqua and Terra satellites.

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center/NASA

I sure hope NASA isn't implying that Global Warming is real. They aren't allowed to do that anymore.

Hopefully I'm old and died before the sea level rise. Too bad this piece of ice decide to break off this year instead of 1 year ago before I decided to purchase my new home. I wish I chose to buy a property on a hill instead of near the sea.

So this global warming thing and potential sea rising will not occur within next 50 years right? So I don't need to care about it?

Please excuse my skepticism when you link an opinion piece that uses localized data (ooh, the Snowdon ice cap got more snow!) and purposely confusing data (comparing the tropical troposphere temperatures to global land temperatures) by a Robert Murdoch-owned media company. It has all the legitimacy of me standing in a hurricane and saying that my farts generate 100 MPH winds.

Frankly, when the NOAA says that global land temps for March, 2008 are the highest ever recorded, you still can't point to that as a sign of global warming unless you consider it within a bigger picture. However, I find that data to far more reliable. Frankly, if the NOAA - a division of the US Commerce Dept - can produce that information without being censored by this administration, then you have to view it as correct. If there was any question about it, we all know the Bush Administration would do what they've done for the last 8 years - censor it.

Please excuse my skepticism when you link an opinion piece that uses localized data (ooh, the Snowdon ice cap got more snow!) and purposely confusing data (comparing the tropical troposphere temperatures to global land temperatures) by a Robert Murdoch-owned media company. It has all the legitimacy of me standing in a hurricane and saying that my farts generate 100 MPH winds.

Frankly, when the NOAA says that global land temps for March, 2008 are the highest ever recorded, you still can't point to that as a sign of global warming unless you consider it within a bigger picture. However, I find that data to far more reliable. Frankly, if the NOAA - a division of the US Commerce Dept - can produce that information without being censored by this administration, then you have to view it as correct. If there was any question about it, we all know the Bush Administration would do what they've done for the last 8 years - censor it.

Don't be an ass about everything that doesn't fit your viewpoint perfectly (I mean, really, we don't need you to act like Unbreakable). I stated, UP FRONT, that my link was an OPINION PIECE. Further, there are clear examples of GLOBAL data (not just UK local) the author used to make his point. I mean, what, no comment about the ice levels in both the Arctic and Antarctic being larger than normal? Or the faulty hockey stick graph program? Or that bit about the big Pacific current flipping to cold?

Oh, and by the way, I work for the Department of Commerce, I have the authority to make decisions on behalf of the government, and I've never once been censored. So please, don't take unwarranted potshots at the government where they don't belong and are wholly inaccurate.

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that global warming exists, and is having a substantive (and potentially irreversible) effect on weather systems, global temperatures, etc. Look, if someone "disproves" global warming, they'll get their points heard - that's the way science works, and the conservative media will certainly be trumpeting it to the ends of the earth.

Have fun with what? You expect someone to care about a bunch of opinion pieces, 90% of which are posted on the Cato Institute's homepage or the American Spectator? Where's the credible peer-reviewed studies? The carefully framed hypotheses tested by the scientific method? Opinions aren't science. The piece you linked to earlier is an assembly of individual datapoints without any unifying framework, and it certainly doesn't make any effort to educate you about the totality of the data it cites. The typical modus operandi is for the commentator to cherrypick things that sound like they fit their pet theory without regard to the actual conclusions of the original study.

Please excuse my skepticism when you link an opinion piece that uses localized data (ooh, the Snowdon ice cap got more snow!) and purposely confusing data (comparing the tropical troposphere temperatures to global land temperatures) by a Robert Murdoch-owned media company. It has all the legitimacy of me standing in a hurricane and saying that my farts generate 100 MPH winds.

Frankly, when the NOAA says that global land temps for March, 2008 are the highest ever recorded, you still can't point to that as a sign of global warming unless you consider it within a bigger picture. However, I find that data to far more reliable. Frankly, if the NOAA - a division of the US Commerce Dept - can produce that information without being censored by this administration, then you have to view it as correct. If there was any question about it, we all know the Bush Administration would do what they've done for the last 8 years - censor it.

Don't be an ass about everything that doesn't fit your viewpoint perfectly (I mean, really, we don't need you to act like Unbreakable). I stated, UP FRONT, that my link was an OPINION PIECE. Further, there are clear examples of GLOBAL data (not just UK local) the author used to make his point. I mean, what, no comment about the ice levels in both the Arctic and Antarctic being larger than normal? Or the faulty hockey stick graph program? Or that bit about the big Pacific current flipping to cold?

Again, seasonal data does not in any way support or refute climate change unless looked at as part of a larger context. When someone goes "ooh, there's more ice this year", that's not in any way proof of anything unless part of a larger trend. In other words, true evidence is found in long-term data, not seasonal data. The whole article was full of such seasonal "evidence". That we're in a La Nina and just got out of an El Nino, so the Pacific being colder isn't any great revelation. Again, the article is a piece of junk pseudo-science designed to confuse more than inform.

There's a number of documented cases where this administation has censored or not released climate change data that's unfavorable to their current policies...need me to link a few? So get off your power trip ("I have the authority to make decisions" ) and start understanding the difference between evidence and opinion.

brettmcd, I'm sure you're equally qualified as Monckton to write a paper on climate science, given that he has no background in it at all, his paper hasn't been submitted for any sort of peer review, and the venue which published it (in pr0ner's link) added a disclaimer to the top of the article specifically disavowing the conclusions.

As Ironrod elliptically points out, it's just science-like slight-of-hand to fool people without the inclination or ability to delve into the topic. Pretty charts don't make something true. If they did, I can dig up plenty of flat earth tracts, moon landing hoaxes, and other wonders for you to peruse credulously.

What's the underlying takeaway that we're supposed to get from your support for the global warming deniers? That thousands and thousands of capable and proven scientists with real peer-reviewed science behind them are, what, attempting to get the United States to waste hundreds of billions of dollars? What's their motivation for perpetrating this amazingly complex piece of mass fraud? Oh, and only a few gallant people - a conservative British political operative with a background at a London tabloid, and a Cato Institute "scholar" who is paid by the oil companies - have figured out the truth, only to be shouted down by the aforementioned scientists who don't want the truth to come out? Is that it?